Analysis of pedagogical theories of language orientation
The key figure in the problem series E. Rotterdam → V. von Humboldt → Frenet → Piaget → Vygotsky → Zankov is Vygotsky. Erasmus of Rotterdam and W. von Humboldt had an interest in language as a humanist (this position was especially characteristic of the Renaissance). Frenet regarded reading as didact. Piaget, considering the schematic of cognitive operations, paid much attention to the language. But in this respect he is much less bright than Vygotsky. Zankov tried to keep in line with Vygotsky's research, but his views on the role of language in pedagogy were not very innovative. Vygotsky has become a true innovator with respect to language. It was he who confidently chose the language of mentality, and did it with reference to both psychology and language.
For the sake of understanding the essence of pedagogical theories of language orientation, once again turn to philosophy. And here there is a number of theories with a primary focus on language ( de Saussure → Moore → Wittgenstein Heideger → Gadamer → Habermas → Foucault) .
The Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure managed to develop a capacious theory of language in a structuralist-semiotic context. Language for him was a social conditional system of signs. Each sign represented not only an acoustic image, but also a concept. Consequently, the main content of the language is conceptual.
The English philosopher John Moore gave the language a fundamental importance. In fact, he abandoned the mental paradigm, according to which the language is secondary to the mentality. The language is placed in front of it. To get rid of mentality, the language does not relate to it, but to the world of things. The semiotic (sign) character of the language is still recognized.
How to ...
Tired of looking for a solution?Get Your ESSAY Now!
Wittgenstein continued the analytical interpretation of the language. In the early period of his work, he noted that logically, language and reality are the same. It would be more correct to assert them not a logical, but a conceptual congruence. Later he refused to compare the language with the objective reality, arguing that the meaning of the word is its use. He gave the language a primacy in relation not only to the mentality, but also to the world of things. In fact, Wittgenstein became the author of the language turn in philosophy. In the world of people, there is nothing primary or more important than language.
The fundamental ontologist Martin Heidegger, contrary to his teacher phenomenologist Husserl, preceded mentality with language. He argued that thinking is carried out in the language. Consciousness moves into the shadow of the language. But in relation to language, the world of things is primary.
Germenevt Gadamer basically followed Heidegger, but he was extremely reluctant to talk about the world of things. The dependence of the language on things was clearly weakened.
To the representative of the philosophy of the communicative mind Habermas, the world of things was uninteresting. He believed that truth refers to discourse, and the world of things is just a background to it.
Post-structuralist Foucault, in contrast to Marx, did not talk about socio-economic, but about discursive formations. Language dominates all other components of human society.
In the works of outstanding representatives of post-structuralism J. Derrida, J.-F. Lyotard, Yu. Kristeva, the primacy of the language was an axiom. The language ceased to be interpreted as a secondary system of signs.
As we can see, in the works of philosophers a language turn was made. Language began to rise above the mentality, and even over the world of things.
Vygotsky made a language turn directly in psychology and indirectly in pedagogy. He recognized the language as secondary to culture, but primary with respect to mentality.
The language turn was estimated in different sciences differently. The most organic way it was perceived by the logic, mathematics, computer science and linguists. With a little less enthusiasm, he is perceived by social scientists. As for the natural sciences and engineering sciences, their status in connection with the language turn has changed insignificantly.
The teacher, of course, should have clear ideas about the place of language in the sciences. In our opinion, it should distinguish three forms of theoretical relativity: object, mental and linguistic.
In any science, you can distinguish three levels, object (O), mental ( M ) and linguistic (I). Conceptually, they are all arranged in a similar way. It is significant, however, that each of them is relatively independent, and therefore can not be secondary or tertiary in absolute terms. If the subject C1 took some information from the subject C2, then it was not developed by him. For him, it realizes the relation H = & gt; M. If he claims that after thinking he came to a certain conclusion, then the new information was born in the field of mentality, and expressed by language means (the relation M => I). The dependence of mentality and language on objects is expressed by the relations O => gt; M and O => I. But if knowledge about objects was worked out at the expense of the imagination of the researcher himself or as a result of an exchange of opinions, then there are two other relations: M => O and H = & gt; A. Thus, the researcher is not only entitled, but also should implement six different strategies of theoretical relativity, without absolutizing either of them:
Ready to make your order?Get your great paper now
1) O => M => H;
2) O => H => M;
3) M => H = & gt; About;
4) M = & gt; O => H;
5) H = & gt; M => O;
6) H = & gt; O = & gt; M.Supporters of pedagogical theories of language orientation, as a rule, absolutize strategies 5) and 6), for which, in our view, they deserve reproach. But they are worthy of encouragement for attention to the forms of linguistic relativity, the importance of which is simply underestimated by other researchers.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay